Am 07.11.2016 um 15:15 schrieb Laszlo Ersek:
On 11/07/16 08:35, Dennis Luehring wrote:
> Am 04.11.2016 um 20:40 schrieb Laszlo Ersek:
>> I guess it is "possible to design a system which can recover from
>> this", except noone seems to have bothered, since 2009. (Ditto for the
>> proposed "panic-level=X" alternative.)
>>
>> I've now briefly considered posting a trivial kernel patch for this,
>> but having learned about the above commit, I don't think so...
>
> i tried to get some response on the linux-kernel or initramfs
> mailinglist 1-2 weeks ago but no one seems to care
>
> but i still think it would help alot to if some more known developers
> would get involved and send in a patch for this - if only for starting a
> discussion about the
>
> situation
>
Please report the issue directly to the author of commit 73310a169aeb,
that is, "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com> (the latter is his current
email address). Please identify the commit to him and feel free to
reference this discussion on qemu-devel, using the mailing list archive.
If Peter still believes the current logic is valid, no work (= patch)
will have been in vain. If Peter agrees the current logic is wrong after
all, then he should be able to write a patch for you that he won't
dislike (so several iterations won't be necessary for the patch).
Thanks
Laszlo
will do and refere to this discussion here - thx
